Section Mv2_Final.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award. This is a competitive, best value trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov. The government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, Cost/Price, and Small Business Participation. The contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by RFP Section L, and is determined, based on the evaluation of factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the government.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical capability and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. While the government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is inherent throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The government intends to award one (1) contract for the Mission Systems Support 2 effort.

c. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP. The government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of government-furnished property (GFP) IAW FAR 52.245-9.

d. Discussions. The offeror is reminded that the government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of omission, errors, and additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal. If the Government determines that, after the initial evaluation of proposals, discussions are necessary, the Government will make a competitive range determination of the most highly-rated proposals in order to establish a list of offerors with which it will conduct discussions. Discussions will be initiated by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) upon issuance of Evaluation Notices (ENs) to the offerors within the competitive range. ENs may be orally briefed to offerors prior to written release to ensure complete understanding by the respective offeror of any discrepancies. Offeror responses to ENs and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Any offeror excluded at any time during the source selection process will be afforded the opportunity to request either a pre-award or post-award debriefing.

e. Correction Potential of Proposals. The government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any weakness, deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

about:blank

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) This is a best value source selection utilizing the subjective trade-off process. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government will conduct a cost/price analysis to determine whether proposed costs are reasonable, realistic, and balanced, and the overall price is fair and reasonable.

Factor 1: Technical – Demonstrate the offeror has access to a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)-approved Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) approved at the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI)-level

Factor 2: Technical - Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Software Development Scenario (Exhibit B).

Subfactor 2: Program and Risk Management Approach.

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Cost/Price

Factor 5: Small Business Participation Commitment

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The government will evaluate all proposals received against: DIA-approved SCIF (Factor 1), Technical Capability (Factor 2), Past Performance (Factor 3), Cost/Price (Factor 4), and Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Factor 5). The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price factors is: Factor 1; Factor 2; Factor 3; Factor 5. Within Factor 2, Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2. The non-cost/price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor.

b. Technical Factor 1 - DIA-approved SCIF

(1) Offeror shall demonstrate, by submittal of verifiable proof/evidence, the offeror has access to a DIA-approved TS/SCI SCIF at time of proposal submission. Factor 1 will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis using the following table.

(2) Proposals receiving a rating of ‘Pass’ for Factor 1 will be further evaluated. Proposals receiving a rating of ‘Fail’ for Factor 1 will not be further evaluated and are ineligible for contract award.

c. Technical Factor 2 – Technical Capability

(1) Ratings. For those offerors receiving a rating of ‘Pass’ for Factor 1, each offeror’s response to Factor 2, Technical Capability, will be assessed and assigned ratings using Tables 2A and 2B of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 Mar 2016, provided below.

Rating Description Pass Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Fail Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

(2) Evaluation process. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the government’s requirement. The government will utilize the Technical Rating Method contained within Table 2A, which includes the evaluation findings of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal when determining the Technical color rating.

Technical ratings will be assigned at the sub-factor level.

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical capability in meeting the requirement. The Technical Capability Factor (Factor 2) as a whole will receive one overall risk rating.

TABLE 2A - TECHNICAL RATING METHOD

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

TABLE 2B – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Subfactor 1: Software Development Scenario

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates and explains an approach to, and understanding of, the requirements stated in the PWS by the offeror’s response to the tasks stated in the scenario (Exhibit B).

a) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror is able to clearly state a strategy/approach to successfully accomplish the requirements of the scenario, to include identifying software development methods, a discussion of system documentation, and a discussion of handling existing algorithms coded in a variety of languages;

b) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror is able to develop an integrated master schedule to accomplish the requirements as described in the scenario;

c) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror is able to develop a staffing plan (labor categories, estimated hours, and certifications) to successfully accomplish the requirements of the scenario ;

d) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror is able to develop a Testing plan to successfully accomplish the requirements of the scenario;

e) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror is able to identify assumptions, risks and risk mitigation strategies; and

f) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror is able to identify Deliverable products

Subfactor 2: Program and Risk Management approach

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to program and risk management and the extent to which the proposed approach and management will promote successful contractor performance. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates and explains its capability to successfully perform the requirements stated in the PWS. The offeror’s Program Management Approach will be evaluated on its feasibility, its comprehensiveness, and the degree to which the offeror demonstrates how the requirements will be successfully accomplished.

a) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates and explains the offeror’s over-arching Program Management approach;

b) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a staffing plan with identification of key roles to support contract performance;

c) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a successful approach to managing both sustainment and development efforts;

d) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a successful approach to managing timelines;

e) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a successful Programmatic approach to testing;

f) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a successful proposed methodology for recruitment and retention of personnel;

g) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the offeror’s ability to identify risks and develop risk mitigation strategies;

h) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an approach successful SCIF management.

d. Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor submittal will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 Mar 2016, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services to meet contract requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the factors and subfactors of the instant requirement, taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Section M002, paragraph a.(2). The government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. Compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, will be considered in the confidence assessment, if these clauses were included in the past performance example contracts.

(i) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recent contracts, for the purposes of this solicitation, are defined as those where at least six months of work was performed during the five (5) years preceding the proposal due date. Past performance information that fails to meet this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical factors/subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance. For each recent past performance contract reviewed, the relevancy of the work performed, to include scope and magnitude, will generally be assessed for the Technical factor/subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Each proposal’s relevancy rating will be based on the offeror’s past performance as well as any joint venture partner or subcontractor’s past performance whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information sheets (PPIS), Attachment 4, and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, and Table 4):

TABLE 4 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) Quality of Services. The Government will review all past performance information collected, determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

(3) Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality services assessments.

Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 5, below). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, cost/price factor and small business participation factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of confidence in offeror’s future performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

TABLE 5- Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

(4) Impact. More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

e. Factor 4 - Cost/Price

(1) Evaluation Elements. Cost/price proposals will be evaluated for (1) fairness and reasonableness, (2) realism, and (3) unbalanced pricing. An offeror whose cost/price proposal is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic risks not being further considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Cost and price analysis will be conducted for each Offeror’s proposal. The analytical techniques and procedures described herein may be used, singly or in combination with others, to ensure that the final agreed-upon price of is fair and reasonable. The techniques and procedures used are at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

(2) Cost and Price Reasonableness. The proposed costs and prices will be evaluated for reasonableness.

Analysis of proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a cost/price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business (FAR 31.201-3(a)). Normally, cost/price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1.

(3) Realism. Proposals will be analyzed for cost realism. To be realistic, an offeror’s proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and consistency with the technical proposal. In instances where the offeror’s proposed prices appear unrealistically low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar services at similar prices. An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. There is a reasonable expectation of competition for this requirement, thus offerors are cautioned to present their best cost/price proposal.

(4) Unbalanced Pricing. Proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by offerors explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer (CO) if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that: there is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government even though it is the lowest priced offer; or, the offer is so grossly unbalanced its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Price analysis will be conducted to verify the overall price offered is fair and reasonable. The TEP will be the calculated sum of all proposed costs/prices (CLINs 0001 – X006) as provided in Section B of the model contract as substantiated in Attachment 10. If any discrepancies exist between Section B of the model contact and Attachment 10, the model contract will be regarded as the official cost/price submittal of the offeror. Government-provided values for CLINs X004 and X005 shall be used unaltered. Inconsistencies between the proposed Cost/Price Volume and Technical Volume, unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the Technical Factor.

(6) Options, to include FAR 52.217-8, will be evaluated pursuant to solicitation provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total proposed price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

f. Small Business Participation Commitment (Factor 5)

(1) All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein. The Small Business Commitment will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis using the rating table below.

(2) Submittals will be evaluated based upon:

(a) The extent to which firms as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

(b) The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements);

(c) Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements);

(d) The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements);

(e) The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation;

(f) Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements);

g) Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when applicable) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract.

M003 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors.

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.